cybernationsfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Great War IV, The Unjust War
Posting and Edit Rules Everyone needs to remember to sign up for a profile or remember to post the 4 "~" at the end of their messages in order for everyone to keep track of who is doing what. If not you're comments are going to listed as Anonymous and won't do anything to change what goes on or off. For all the new folks, if you can't include a link to a citation, it is best that you DO NOT try to edit it in, because un-sourced material, comments, info, whatever, is going to be flagged and removed. I know that's tough because the boards are down, but this stuff doesn't have to be real-time. Try to focus on the WHO, WHAT, and WHEN right now because the WHY, is going to have to be sorted out very carefully. JTBeowulf 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Great War 4 Title :::I cut&pasted all the discussion about the name of war into this heading. Please try to keep it here in the future - CirrusOfMalla 14:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC) PLEASE DO NOT CALL IT GREAT WAR 4 AS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE EVENTS. Call it Initiative civil war if you like to, New Great War, But it isn't and shouldn't be named Great War 4 - Altnabla :Like it or not, the war already has 5 of the Sanctioned alliances involved, with fairly strong odds that at least 2 more will be joining soon. Add in whatever bandwagoners hop in, and this more or less IS the next Great War. Which is immaterial regardless, because CN consensus has already started calling this GWIV. - Anonymous :I think his point is that the great wars were unreleated to this current one. The great wars were Orders/Initiative vs. CoaLUEtion/League/Aegis slapfights, while this is UJP vs. whatever the ex-WUT bloc is calling themselves. -Anonymous ::This IS Great War IV. There are already other alliances joining in, and at least 7 of the top 10 alliances are involved. More will come shortly. -Anonymous#3 ::: Call it Grand War, Unjust War if you wish but not Great War IV. The point is, the IV is completely irrelevant as it has NOTHING to do with GWI, GWII and GWIII. You seems to confuse the name with "World War" name that is used for a global conflict. It is a Major Conflict but it has NOTHING to do with the Great Wars. Plus the name is lame. -- Altnabla :woot.. all we need is the GPA and we are set for the greatest great war ever. its going to be a snowball effect more and more are coming each day. the number of nations vs the strength is going to overtake in the long haul. wich its going to be. so grab some popcorn and you 7.62 rifle and watch the fireworks fly..-anonymous#999 Added a title to keep this organized. JTBeowulf 13:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Organising it as well, merging what I did with Beowulf stuff --Altnabla 14:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry, but this is too big not to be a great war. The southern treaty web is tearing itself apart, and the web itself is enormous. I think over half the sanctioned alliances are now involved. You said, basically, that all the other Great Wars involved one big bloc against another. That is exactly what's going on right now. I don't know of another conflict as big as this one that hasn't been called a Great War. --Anonymous It shouldn't been called the Great war for it has nothing to do with the Great war timeline. GW 1,2 and 3 were linked in some sort. This is a war between Winners and Neutrals of the GWIII. I don't any LUE, NAAC or Legion yet, it is even anticipated that Fark MAY join with UJP so this is not a great war, as far as definition goes. I think both sides agree with that. --Altnabla, IRON While the title of "Great War IV" is expected, I agree with the proposition that the title of the conflict should be different. The Unjust War would likely work, as I can see both sides in the conflict spinning the title to their particular line easily. : I like "Unjust War", personally. - 63.167.196.17 13:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC) ::^That was me. Forgot to log in. - CirrusOfMalla 14:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC) : "Unjust War" Might work, I don't particularly disagree with it even if it's a bit one-sided but it is vague enough not be certain of whether Unjust wins or is decimated so it works for me/ Altnabla Every war has new participants so determining names on that basis seems to me, a little flimsy. The continuity shared between the other GW's of I, II, and III, is that they involved major sanctioned alliances on either side, and that the involvement 'great world powers,' (sanctioned alliances) are involved is justification enough for 'Great War' title. I'm all for having a "Naming Section" just like we've had previously, but as far as I'm concerned, we really need to wait for the forums to be back up to make any real judgments on what folks (inside and outside of the fight) are calling it. JTBeowulf 16:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC) : Agreed. There should be a forum thread discussing the name. However, I will disagree with your point that every war has different participants. The previous 3 Great Wars were all essentially a single conflict: CoaLUEtion vs WUT. This is most definitely a new and different one. This war is "great" in the descriptive sense, but nonetheless it needs a unique name. - CirrusOfMalla 17:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC) :: I see your point and that is completely understandable, however, at this point UJP represents 4 out of 7 of the WUT, so technically the majority of WUT is at war now though they may not be fighting under the Initiative banner. Though I do think this may need to be given its own name given the uniqueness of how confusing it has all become. I don't see the need to press the issue now, but I do appreciate you bringing that point up, Cirrus. JTBeowulf 18:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC) This should not be named the fourth great war. There is a naming thread going on in the in game forums right now. Take the discussion there and build the wiki at that page. I like "Epic War" personally, it's generic and does not refer to either side. -BamaBuc 68.17.148.247 23:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Personally, I dislike Unjust war cause its POV and we should try to be neutral in articles. --74.105.123.91 01:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Going to go ahead and rename it Unjust War seems to have a plurality of support among people offering serious opinions in the forum thread on the topic, so I’m going to go ahead and rename the article, leaving a redirect from Fourth Great War. If another name picks up more momentum we can always rename it again, but any name will have a better chance of sticking if it’s used universally. -CirrusOfMalla 01:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Combatant Statistics Quote: Name to be determined, Ex-wut members IRON : 10,836,604 ns NpO : 6,197,548 ns ODN : 5,688,797 ns GGA : 4,970,213 ns NoV : 2,480,259 ns GDA : 1,909,130 ns TSH : 1,535,745 ns STA: 1,460,546 ns UPN : 1,275,669 ns ONOS : 1,210,467 ns SOUL: 1,141,656 ns The Brigade: 977,892 ns NTO : 950,181 ns CSE : 107,435 ns 40,742,142 ns Quote: The Unjust Path GOONS : 13,506,930 ns \m/ : 6,724,909 ns TPF : 3,206,848 ns Genmay : 3,043,981 ns MK : 2,065,452 ns GOD : 1,408,022 ns TOOL : 1,359,795 ns R&R : 1,079,667 ns EoTRS : 992,163 ns Golden Sabres : 932,248 ns OFS : 488,439 ns 34,808,454 ns Up to date for Alliances that have issued a DoW --Altnabla 06:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Current Declarations of War IRON: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1053 NPO: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1058 GOONS: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1068 GGA: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1051 Golden Sabers: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1063 NpO: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1052 I added a title, cause for a second I had know idea what this stuff was. JTBeowulf 13:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Stop with the flamebait over our alliance title UJP, as well as changing \m/ Ns. I will refrain myself from doing so as well. Dleeted Boondock as he was appearing twice --Altnabla 14:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC) I edited out the posted versions per the boards coming back online. You can go check them out yourself, but I pulled in as many as I found before I'm heading to lunch. Now that the boards are up, I hope some folks start citing before editing the page, cause that makes everything go a lot smoother. JTBeowulf 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Wrong Numbers I love how \m/ has 30 million NS in those numbers up there. At the time of my check, they had 6,831,284 NS. Changes the look of things. Might want to fix that. Abstract Bias The Abstract seems to present bias against current members of the WUT. 7 members are still present, and calling this war an effective disunion is far fetched as the only alliance to leave WUT is the NPO at this point in time. I do not think this article has the authority to jump to the conclusion that the Initiative is effectively ended, and it should be edited. JTBeowulf 16:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC) : The Abstract was biased the other way round when I edited it, I asked someone from the GPA to write one for me. If anyone has a less biased description for it, go ahead but "Former allies in the World Unity Treaty devolve to war, pitting GOONS and its closest allies against New Polar Order and its closest allies. " Really was biased. --Altnabla 02:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC) In actuality, it would seem to me that since GOONs, GenMay, \m/, and TPF constitute a majority of WUT signatories, MDC, MCXA and TOP, will be obliged to join in per the WUT. UJP and WUT are synonymous at this point, and unless the non-UJP members of WUT leave, then it should be "WUT vs Blue et al." JTBeowulf 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC) After reading the UJP and WUT charters side by side, there is an interesting legal problem. In the UJP Charter, Section B; Article i states: No signatory alliance, leader or member will divulge any classified information to those who do not follow the unjust path or those without the proper security clearance. The leaking of information, for whatever reason, will result in immediate expulsion from the unjust path and an automatic declaration of war. While in WUT, Section III states: If a signatory alliance possesses information relevant to the well being of any other signatory the presentation of that material to the other signatories is required. So theoretically, "B-i" of UJP violates the mandate of "WUT-III," and therefore GOONs, GenMay, \m/, and TPF all stand in violation of the WUT even though they hold a majority 4/7 or approximately 57% of vote. If the illegal members remain the majority, WUT rules have become void, but it would have begun with the signing of UJP, not with this war. JTBeowulf 17:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC) : I don't know about TOP and MDC, but MCXA will almost certainly be supporting BLEU. However, in any event Pacifica leaving WUT is enough to call it a major schism IMO. Pacifica led WUT for most of its history, so WUT without NPO is a significantly different animal than WUT with NPO. At this point, it's the same bloc in name only. - CirrusOfMalla 19:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC) : Furthermore, though their leaving was not part of this specific event, I do think NpO and GGA's resignations from WUT were a result of the same larger conflict with GOONS over leadership. If true, then NPO, NpO, GGA and MCXA (assumption) will all have left over this one issue. - CirrusOfMalla 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)